As the editor and nominal "publisher" of the MSNS Mich-Matist, I asked the Board of Directors to approve an increase in payments to authors from 5 cents to 10 cents per word, with a maximum of $100. That maximum creates an natural ceiling about 1000 words, which is the right length for the magazine. This puts the Mich-Matist at double the CSNS Centinal, and within range of the ANA's Numismatist. For the ANA "Internet Connections" column, I send in about 900 words and get $120 per issue. For features, say 1800 to 2000 words, such as the recent one on Proof $20 Gold Coins, or earlier efforts on Large Cents, Dime Type Sets, or Sir Isaac Newton, I typically get about $180 to $220, depending on the layout. The ANA pays by the printed page, not by the word.

I have an article coming out in The Celator in October. The Celator pays with an annual subscription. In this case, the 3400 word work garnered a $30 value, under 9 mils (nine-tenths of a U.S. cent) per word -- and that does not count the occasional news feature that I send in.

Of course, we do not get paid to write here, on RCC, etc.

I have been paid to provide content for numismatic websites. Typically, websites pay about half of print, but are content with an re-edited version of something already written, rather than requiring new work. The single largest body of my online content is at Coin Newbies, which I donated to Alison for her site. Much of that came from "Money Talks" radio script submissions that the ANA did not buy. Other articles on Coin Newbies originated with my work for Lloyd Lim's Numismatica, which also was a freebie.

I have never been directly paid for any of the words I have ever written, at least not in a monetary sense. It is interesting to see the rates that are paid, though. I really had no idea.

It may be fodder for a seperate thread but, what kind of rights do you typically give up when published? Can you use an article that gets published in Numismatist in another magazine? Do you have to wait a certain time if you do?

I wrote articles for a local coin club years ago, but I felt they were not really of interest to my intended audience, why? Because they were about British coins, Falklands paper money etc. Frankly they were of no interests to my audience. I think a lot of what I am interested in is not of interest to collectors in the USA, but only in Britain. See my website and you will appreciate that, and note that I have targeted it accordingly and spelling conventions are similar etc.

I have no desire to see my name in any other form.

My areas of interest don't really have a market in USA either and to be frank they wouldn't have much of a scope in England either!

Anglo-Saxon and Norman coins just don't pull in the crowds like Victorian coins. But lets face it Victorian coins are boring, pretty perhaps but boring nonetheless, same design for 50 years and nothing really historiocally exciting going off (unless you're interested in English law and bill and act amendments), now wouldn't that bore you?

Typically people sell "first rights" (North American Serial rights, worldwide etc.) when they write a work for a periodical. You write somethign new and the publisher is the only one who benefits.

Usually authors keep subsequent and reprint rights. Some magazines will take previously published articles but most won't.

Defense Computing, a Cahners magazine, took an article I wrote about Soviet computer technology for another periodical. Literally, they took it. They claimed that in the absence of a copyright statement, the originally publisher and I had no claim. So, they reprinted it. I called the editor and I was able to use moral suasion to get a hundred bucks from them.

It is true that generally one magazine will not accept what another has already published. They are all in the business of selling NEW (NEW! Improved!!) information. There are some exceptions. Utne Review specializes in recycled information.

The internet is a great place for exporting magazine articles. I do a lot of that.

Also, there was one time where I sold the usual first publication rights, but the publisher insisted on "electronic" rights and listed a bunch and said that more could exist. Big deal, I chuckled, and I signed on the line. That was in 1979. Boy! Did I come to regret that!! The publisher got into videos and all kinds of things and now we have the WWW and I have no rights to what was for me a hot seller. Rats!

BTW, as publisher of the Mich-Matist, we pay once for the printed piece and then we place it on the Website (www.michigancoinclub.org) later. One snag was a nice bit of work from an elementary school that was perfect for the Website but not for the magazine. So, I arranged to pay the teacher as if it had been in print, though, technically, we had no policy for this.

Coinpedia.net is a great idea, but one which seems to be up and running elsewhere. You would have to go a ways to do an end run around Ron Guth's CoinFacts.Com to say nothing of the industry standard Wikipedia, which has tons of numismatic information on it.

What I like about Coinpedia.net is the enticement to address "Most Requested" topics. Requested by whom? I asked myself. I mean, for instance, if someone were to actually do a software search of sentences ending in question marks, that might be revealing.

One thing that occured to me was the frequent question about Software for cataloguing and inventorying. That comes up often here, there, and elsewhere, but is not listed on Coinpedia as a hot topic. I also suggest "Fakes on eBay" as another hot topic, something many people seem to want to know about -- and which many people seem willing to address.

The big challenge here to me the incentive to write, or the lack of one. You can say that this is a hobby and no one makes money from it -- which is not true, obviously because it can be disproved in two words: Harlan Berk ... or one word: Heritage. Obviously, some people do make money at this. There are only 24 hours in a day. In order for me to do something, I must have some incentive. Money is an easy example. Failing that, I need to see some opportunity for fame. Those are my personal motivators.

Other people have their own. You might point to the personal satisfaction of a job well done -- and that works for me, but only as a means to an end, a consequence of doing the work for which I have incentive. Again, your personal hierarchy of values is your own and you might consider something else a motivator with wealth and fame being consequential to that.

The question remains: where is the motivation to create work for Coinpedia.net? A link called "Write for Coinpedia" with an open invitation to "state your terms" or "make an offer" would be one way to attract writers.

Heritage, Superior, Harlan J. Berk, Jake's Marketplace, take your pick... in every walk of life, there are people who create wealth. We tend to underappreciate that mix of talents. It might be ineffable. Certainly, the business schools seem unable to teach it: they just train managers. In the online world, content is free or nearly so. That makes it hard to get paid for it. Yet, I submit, that perhaps the right person simply has not approached the problem.

I can understand your point of view, getting paid for your efforts is certainly a plus. But there is more than one way of getting paid. Heritage, for example, has made me a standing offer to pay my membership fees to the Numismatic Literary Guild if I will but join the organization. And that's just for what I have done in the past. That's doesn't amount to much really, but over time I suppose it would add up.

And I have had several numismatic periodicals request that I write articles for them on the subject of my choice and offering generous payment for them. But that's not why I write. No, the prospect of monetary gain for my writing holds no allure for me.

I hardly think that anything I've ever written has or will result in fame for doing so. But then that's not why I do it either. Although I readily admit that I would not object if it did.

No I suppose I write for two reasons. The primary reason I write is to make information available to others that they might have hard time finding. The second reason is because I enjoy it and by doing so it makes me feel good. That's about all there is to it for me.

I agree. I write for the GNA Journal because David Crenshaw does an excellent job at production and the journal wins awards. Payment comes in the form of a Honorary (non-voting) Membership. I am happy to parcipate and honored to be allowed to. Similarly, the Celator pays for articles with only a subscription.

I also understand that you find personal satisfaction to be a primary motivator. It is easier to write for free when you have a day job. Writing is my day job.

Certainly won't get any disagreement from me on that